It's really very subjective. Obviously most players you encounter most everywhere are not going to be very good. And a lot depends on your particular style and comfort level.

I generally do best against the passive rocks/weak tighties because I find it easy to read them and my slightly loose and aggressive style makes them crazy. So my best results have come at UB and the early-month Cryptos when all the bonus whores are out in force.

On the other hand, I struggle mightily at the places generally perceived as fish farms -- Party, Tribeca, Pacific, places like that. I guess I'm just not good with the unpredictability factor, and I tend to try to get too fancy with them and it burns me. I can handle pretty easily one or two calling-stations and LAGtards at a table, but it makes me crazy when the table is full of 'em.



.

Well, I'm not a fan of Noble poker...bunch of people playing for the bonus over there IMO. Paradise is full of pretty bad player IMO.

UB is the place where you can extract the least if you are playing NL$100 and below. I have to agree that there are different kinds of bad players all over thhe internet but some places are better for some style of play. Ovrall, I think Bodog and tribeca has the worst players in the whole world, followed by party.

Definetely UB and Stars has the fewest donors.

Player at Tribeca and Bodog are really bad, which doesn't mean it fits everyone play. It the long run it could be much better but due to the fact they are that bad, you'll suffer huge variance, specially in those days when they sem to catch evrything they chase for.

On the other side, I've been playing few at PStars lately, and IMO there's much more bad players now than it used to be. maybe all that advertising they are doing brought many new players.

WPX is tough. I have 35K hands played there. And everytable has 4-6 players that are solid TAGGY players. I'm winning a crappy .97 PTBB/100.

EDIT: I play 100NL & 200 NL

35k hands at that shitty rate and WHY are you still playing there?